
>All of those developments occurred in an orderly sequence: First farming and village life arrived; then surpluses born of human achievement that created social inequality; then hierarchies with priests and chieftains at the top; then massive monuments, cities, states, and writing to keep track of it all. Geographically, the old story of those developments centered on the Fertile Crescent of western Asia, and to a lesser extent the Nile Valley of Egypt....
>That story is wrong in some respects and incomplete in far more.
It's a constant rise and fall, with innovations and cities/civilizations that both did and didn't succeed often equally valid and appropriate paths to take. Sounds kind of bog-standard, I guess, but it's rife with examples of "Oh yeah here's a 1,500 year-old city, but it was 7,000 years ago and then disappeared so you've never heard of it."
Yale's introductory Greek history class with lectures from Donald Kagan is available online and part of it covers the Mycenaean empire and its fall.
https://art19.com/shows/tides-of-history/episodes/cb335af3-e...
Wyman evaluates it with both sympathy and criticism.
Life post-black death in Europe, for example, included a heightened QoL for many as population density was lowered.
Many peasants in Europe had their own plot of land but also had to spend some time working his lords' fields. Often the lords had to supplement this with paid work - peasants did not particularly like giving away their labour for free and as such did not work very hard.
My source is Patrick Wyman's podcast "Tides of History". He has a PhD in history. He has a Substack also: https://patrickwyman.substack.com/ and another great podcast, "The Fall of Rome".
I cannot ensure that my assertions hold for all of Europe :-).